1. ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section
Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions
FITWG 2000

2. AMHS Backup Outline Contributors Page 3
How Metrics were Selected Page 4
Material Handling Technology Requirements Table Page 5
Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to Reality Page 6
Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Reqs Pg 7-27
System Throughput Requirements pages 7-17
Reliability pages 18-19
Hot Lot Delivery Time Pages 20-22
Delivery Time Pages 23-27
Potential Solution Options Pg 28-67
Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS) Pages 28-42
Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3rd Party LP/Buffer Pages 43-46
Integrated Flow and Control Pages 47-54
Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track Storage Pages 55-59
Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs Pages 60-61
Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints Pages 62-67
Potential Research Topics Pg 68-69

3. AMHS Contributors Will Perakis, Asyst Marlin Shopbell, SemaTech
Joe Reiss, Asyst
Thomas Mariano, Brooks
Neil Fisher, SK Daifuku
Dan Stevens, Hirata
Doug Oler, Hirata
Scott Pugh, Hirata
Larry Hennessy, IDC
Adrian Pyke, Middlesex
Ron Denison, Murata
Chung Soo Han, AMD
Detlev Glueer, AMD
Marlin Shopbell, SemaTech
Dave Miller, IBM
Melvin Jung, Intel
Steve Seall, Intel
Len Foster, TI
Roy Hunter, TI
Sven Hahn, Infineon
Harald Heinrich, Infineon
Mikio Otani, ASI
Makoto Yamamoto, Murata
Junji Iwaskai, Renasas
Seiichi Nakazawa, F-RIC

4. How Metrics were selected
Almost every metric is a best in class or close to best in class
Sources are: Individual IC maker and AMHS Supplier feedback.
It is likely a factory will not achieve all the metrics outlined in the roadmap concurrently
Individual business models will dictate which metric is more important than others
It is likely certain metrics may be sacrificed (periodically) for attaining other metrics.
The Factory Integration metrics are not really tied to the technology nodes as in other chapters such as Lithography
However, nodes offer convenient interception points to bring in new capability, tools, software and other operational potential solutions
Inclusion of each metric is dependent on consensus agreement
We think the metrics provide a good summary of stretch goals for
most companies in today’s challenging environment.

5. Material Handling Technical Requirements
Year of Production
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009/ 2010
2012 / 2013
2015 / 2016
2018
Wafer Diameter
300mm
450mm
Transport E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E10 15 12 10 9 8 7 6
Storage E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E10 30 25 20
Transport MMBF (Mean move between failure)
5,000
7,000
8,000
11,000
15,000
25,000
35,000
45,000
55,000
65,000
Storage MCBF (Mean cycle between failure)
22,000
30,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
100,000
Peak System throughput (40K WSPM)
Interbay Transport (moves/hour)
2075
2150
2250
2500
Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay
190
200
210
230
Transport (moves/hour) - unified system
4100
4240
4740
4900
5000
Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity) 14
Average delivery time (minutes) 5
Peak delivery time (minutes)
Hot Lot Avg. delivery time (minutes) 4 3 2
AMHS lead time (weeks)
<12
<11
<10
<9
<8
AMHS install time (weeks)
<16
<14
Downtime to extend system capacity when previously planned (minutes)
<90
<60
<30
<15
<0

6. Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality
Potential Solution it is driving
Wafer Transport System Capability
Direct transport (or integrated interbay & intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating send-ahead, & hand-carry TPT targets
Transport MMBF, Storage MCBF, Transport E-MTTR, Storage E-MTTR
Storage and transport redundancy schemes; fault tolerant MCS; e-Diagnostics, EES, APC for AMHS
Stocker cycle time per system
Fundamental capability that permits the AMH system to successfully transport hot lots, gating send-aheads and hand-carries
Stocker storage density
New storage ideas which significantly reduce stocker footprint in the fab cleanroom (Under Track Storage, Conveyors)
Downtime required for adding increased system capacity when previously planned
New track and stocker extension designs that permit AMHS retrofit/expansion in a working factory with minimum downtime

7. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS System Throughput

8. 2003 Inputs, Assumptions & Output
(Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table)
M. Jung
Intel

9. Peak AMHS MPH – Sample Calculation
System Throughput Requirements for transition to direct transport:
Sample Calculation for 2005:
40K WSPM
Process Steps
= 25 layers X 29 steps/layer X 40k wspm
(725 steps X 40k wspm)
= = 1593 process steps per hour
(727 Hrs/month X 25 wafers /lot)
Direct Transport Average MPH
= ((%Tool to Tool moves x 1 Move)+((1-%Tool to Tool moves) x 2 Moves)) x Process Steps per Hour
= ((10% x 1) + ((1 – 10%) x 2)) x 1593
= 3027 MPH
Direct Transport Peak MPH
= Average AMHS MPH x (1+2std dev)
= 3027 x (1 + 2 x .20)
= ~4240 MPH

10. 2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output
(Reference)
M. Jung
Intel

11. 2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference)
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference)
System Throughput Requirements for Intrabay (2004/2005):
Sample Calculation:
High throughput = 20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour
Intrabay MPH wafers/carrier
= 100 Moves / Hr Average
= ~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i.e., Avg+ 2xStd Dev)
FITWG 2000

12. 2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations)
M. Jung
Intel

13. Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions)
M. Jung
Intel

14. Separate Interbay & Intrabay
Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2
Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3
Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1
Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3 S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8 L1 L3 L2 L4 L5
M. Jung
Intel

15. Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected
Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2
Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T OR T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5
Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1
Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S OR S1 -> L3 -> S3 S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8 L1 L2 L3
M. Jung
Intel

16. Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool
Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2
Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> T3
Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1
Between two Storage devices S1 -> L1 -> S3 L1 S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8
M. Jung
Intel

17. Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool
1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2
2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> X1 -> L5 -> X2 -> L2 -> T3
3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1
4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3 S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8 X1 X2 X3 X4 L5 L1 L3 L2 L4
M. Jung
Intel

18. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS Reliability Metrics

19. AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day
Inputs
Outputs

20. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Hot Lot Delivery Time

21. AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time
Goal: Determine Regular AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time to meet Cycle Time.
Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below.
If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time Requirements.
M. Jung
Intel

22. AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time
Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions:
The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time.
The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time.
The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle Time.
M. Jung
Intel

23. 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Delivery Time

24. Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1
Timestamp
Description
Comment
Example
Carrier is handed over to AMHS (e.g. at loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest)
09:13:12 ‚
Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or conveyor (“real transport media”)
may be = 
09:13:50 ƒ
Hoist, vehicle or conveyor arriving at (final) destination
9:20:02 „
Carrier is handed over from AMHS to equipment (e.g. at loadport, I/O, …)
may be = ƒ
11:05:07 …
Operator, Host or Equipment requesting carrier
11:04:11
D. Glueer
AMD

25. Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2
Description
Interval
Example
Travel Time
Time carrier spends on vehicle, hoist or conveyor
ƒ - ‚
5 min
Delivery Time
Time required to transport a carrier from one production equipment to any other production equipment in the factory.
ƒ - 
7 min
Lateness
Time operator or equipment needs to wait for carrier, excluding minimum robot handling time at destination
… - „ - tRetrieve
2 min
D. Glueer
AMD

26. AMHS Updates for 2003 – ITRS & ISMT Metric Definitions
Transport move definition: A transport move is defined as a carrier move between loadports (stocker to stocker, stocker to production equipment, production equipment to stocker or production equipment to production equipment).
Avg. Factory wide carrier delivery time: the time begins at the request for carrier movement from the host and ends when the carrier arrives at the load port of the receiving equipment. Maximum delivery time is considered the peak performance capability defined as the average plus two standard deviations.
Handling time at destination tRetrieve: the (minimum) robot handling time required to move the carrier from the last storage location to the operator or the processing tool.
Combined AMHS: delivery time and lateness are aggregated times, including optional changes of transportation media along the path to the destination.
D. Glueer
AMD

27. Strategic Goals for Delivery Time
Conceptual - Values don't match Reqs Table.
See Direct Transport Material for further discussion.
5% p.a. Delivery Time decrease p.a. due to advances in AMHS technology
10% p.a. Lateness decrease due to Delivery Time, MES and dispatching improvements
D. Glueer
AMD

28. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Transport: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions
FITWG 2000

29. AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System
Intra and Inter
Separate System
Unified System
(Dispatcher Base)
(Scheduler Base)
Transfer
Throughput
Transfer Time
(Ave & Max)
Punctuality
(On-Time)
Intra-Bay
Inter-Bay
Push
Pull
Re-Route
Ave & Max
Time
Wafer Level
Tracking
Capacity
Planning
On-Time
Delivery
AMHS
Key Indicator
Equipment
View
Lot View
H/W Efforts
S/W Efforts
Reduce WIP
Schedule WIP
J. Iwasaki
Renasas

30. The Next Generation Factory Concept
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
The Next Generation Factory Concept
…..
Supporting
System
Mfg.
Planning
Agile
-Mfg.
Direct
Transport
Wafer
Level Control E-
Diagnostic
Supplier’s
SCM
User’s SCM -
Supply Chain
Management
EES
E-Mfg.
Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories
FITWG 2000

31. Direct Tool to Tool Transport Is Needed by 2005
Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept Options being considered
Objectives:
Reduce product processing cycle time
Increase productivity of process tools
Reduced storage requirements (# of stocker)
Reduced total movement requirements
Priorities for Direct Delivery:
Super Hot Lots (< 1% of WIP) & Other Hot Lots (~5% of WIP)
Ensure bottleneck equipment is always busy
Gating metro and send ahead. Other lot movements opportunistically
Capability Needs
Tools indicate that WIP is needed ahead of time
Event driven dispatching
Transition to a delivery time based AMHS
Integrated factory scheduling capabilities
ID Read at Tools
Timing
Research Required
Development Underway
Qualification/Pre-Production S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8
Fully Connected OHV S1 S2 T1 T2 S3 S4 T3 T4 S5 S6 T5 T6 S7 S8 T7 T8
OHV with Interbay Transport
Partially Connected OHV
With Conveyor Interbay

32. Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept
Central Stocker
(Large Capacity)
(High Throughput)
Upper Ceiling
OHT
Branch
Note: Current
OHT systems
cannot meet
the longer-term
throughput
Under Floor
Full Direct Transport
FITWG 2000

33. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept
Conveyor Type
Transport
FITWG 2000

34. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept
Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay hoist
Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor <-> Tool Delivery Hoist
A. Pyke
Middlesex
FITWG 2000

35. Material Handling: Alternate Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems
Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station.
Interbay Conveyor <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV
Interbay Vehicle (passive) <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station
Interbay Vehicle <-> Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation
Interbay vehicle <-> Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station
A. Pyke
Middlesex

36. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves)
Stocker X
Subway
Transport
system
Waffle slab
Raised metal floor
Stocker robot
Section X-X
Conveyor installed
on waffle slab
Transparent
cover
600mm
max
12’ceiling
2nd transport loop
(if needed)
Conveyor Maintenance:
Via the top for Subway system
Via the bottom for Overhead system
D. Pillai
Intel Corp

37. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves)
Loadport with
Safety cover
and Elevator
Raised
Metal
Floor
Waffle
slab
Conveyor
on waffle
900mm
600mm
PGV
Dock
flange
Safety
Cover
D+D1 = 450mm EB
FOUP gripper
Simple
Gantry
robot
Stocker
Tool ME X
Tool
Pedestal
envelope
Mini
Environment
Tool body
(side view)
door opener zone
D. Pillai
Intel Corp

38. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry)EB
D+D1 = 450mm
Gantry
Rails
Safety
cover
Door opener
Mini
Environment
Tool body
Door opener
D. Pillai
Intel Corp

39. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Elevation View w/ Gantry)
Gantry robot takes FOUP to
Loadport and places on KC
Tool front face
Door opener
flange
Loadport 1
Empty loadport 2
FOUP lifting
Exclusion
zones
900mm
Raised Metal Floor
Outline of
pedestal Œ
Gantry robot picks up FOUP from
Conveyor and raised to the top
Subway conveyor
Waffle
slab
D. Pillai
Intel Corp

40. Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Layout)
D. Pillai
Intel Corp

41. Factors that affect opportunity for direct transport - AMHS
Interbay and Intrabay Track Layout
Unified track supporting interbay and intrabay systems
“Crossovers” to reduce AMHS cycle time – increase empty vehicle availability
Bypass capability for traffic jams
Parking area for empty vehicles
Advantage: Increased possibility for direct delivery. Reduced AMHS cycle time
Disadvantage: Might increase complexity for MCS to manage overall AMHS system complexity increases w/ integrated system w/ multiple tracks & add’l complexity in layouts (bypasses, shortcuts)
# of vehicles
High: Traffic jams may occur
Low: FOUP will wait to be picked up
AMHS Controller/MCS Functionality
Support MES and Dispatching systems
Balance empty vehicles throughout the fab
Currently in AMHS control, this is ok for today. In future, need further integrated system to provide add’l MES data (tools, WIP) to proactively optimize management of empty vehicles (stage vehicles).
Integrate third party buffers
Redirect vehicle route/destinations while on route
C. Han
AMD

42. SEMI Standards Assessment
Intrabay Side
Hoist type vehicle interface:
Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, pickup by top flange.
Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins).
Handoff by E84
RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses KC pins or option fork lift flanges):
Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, KC pins available for robot.
RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses conveyor rails):
Pickup: Carrier located by KC pin lifter, conveyor rails available for robot.
Drop-off: Carrier placed on KC pins, robot uses conveyor rails
Interbay Side
Most “active vehicle” type vehicles should work without issue:
E85 Option A – “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to Internal Stocker location”
“Internal Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer.
E85 Option B - “Active Transport Delivers Carrier to External Stocker location”
“External Stocker location” replaced by Conveyor Buffer.
Passive Vehicle Interface will require secondary active component:
Dedicated pick and place unit or robot.
Software
IBSEM will work as-is for Interbay, Intrabay and Hybrid systems.
E84 good handoff protocol for all low level handoffs.
Also, IBSEM possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but may be overkill.
STKSEM also possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but extreme overkill.
Minor modifications in IBSEM (E82) may allow easier vehicle-vehicle handoff, through intermediate device. Could be investigated. Further work needed.
A. Pyke
Middlesex

43. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Tool-to-Tool Delivery
3rd Party Loadport / Buffer.
C. Han
AMD
FITWG 2000

44. Key Factors - # of LP (FOUP Buffers)
Three loadports (for normal process tool) can increase the direct tool-to-tool delivery possibility
LP #1: Processing
LP #2: Non-production wafer FOUP for Send Ahead or Test
LP #3: To be processed
Advantage
Can deliver at any time (unless next FOUP to be processed is already on the non-processing LP)
Tool dedicated Non-production FOUP reside on the process tool (instead of delivery back and forth from stocker)
 Reduced # of delivery cycles
Disadvantage
Tools usually have only two load ports, this approach requires an additional LP
Tools may not support installation of additional LP due to their design
Third party buffer is possible solution instead of additional LP
Need to have “internal” transfer between buffer and LPs
AMHS(OHT) to deliver FOUP to buffer
C. Han
AMD

45. Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non-Production Wafer FOUP for two LP
Non-production wafer (i.e. Send Ahead and test) FOUP resides on process tool only for the time required
Transfer from stocker to process tool (not required for the 3 LP scenario)
Transfer from process tool to metrology tool
Transfer from metrology tool to sorter for Send Ahead merge (may not be required for 3 LP scenario)
Transfer from sorter to Stocker (in 3 LP case, transfer to process tool)
Advantage
Can be done with two LP in the process tool
Disadvantage
Next lot can not be delivered until non-production wafers processed, and FOUP removed from the tool
Increase deliveries
C. Han
AMD

46. Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non-Production Wafer FOUP
Non-Production Wafers
Production Wafers
Time
LP #1
Three LP
LP #2
LP #3
Next lot can be delivered at any time
Non-production FOUP can be delivered back to LP #2 at any time
LP #1
Two LP
LP #2
Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot
Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker
C. Han
AMD

47. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Integrated Flow and Control: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

48. Material Handling Potential Solutions Backup Section Content
Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control
Assumptions
Carrier Level Solution with Concept Drawing
Type 1: Sorter and Metrology Equipment Integration with Stockers
Wafer level Solutions with Concept Drawings
Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs (Equipment Front-end Modules)
Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM
Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving “Sushi Bar”)

49. Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control
Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control - See concept diagrams on following pages
Assumptions:
Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control Type 1: Sorter and Metrology with Stockers
Compatible with existing standard carrier
Must be collaboration between sorter, metrology and AMHS suppliers to integrate stockers with other equipment
Hardware integration primarily owned by stocker supplier
Equipment integration work primarily controls interface
Requires a carrier 180º rotation during hand-off from stocker robot to tool load port(s)
Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs
Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems may require new sorting equipment
Contamination control must be addressed by way of a tunnel or mini-environment expansion
Bypass required for individual equipment downtimes to prevent cluster shutdown
Requires standardized EFEM interfaces (at the interface between the tunnel and EFEM) are recommended for ease of wafer transport "tunnel" integration.
If cluster equipments, then total tool to tool moves may go down. Honma some big (parallel) clusters of equipment are appearing CMP-clean-measurement. At higher nodes the number of process steps will go up due to increases in metallization levels. Dev.- If go with smaller lot sizes then may have more carriers in total and increased moves required. Discussed tradeoffs between conveyor and vehicle base transport. Impact on overall move requirements??? One scheme is to use clustering to hold number of process steps constant across nodes. Improvements in AMHS performance may be smaller per year and not at same rate as number of metal levels etc. Therefore conclusion: follow roadmap to limit and then assume flat from there on out due to clustering
2. Keep cycle times for large and small stockers - ????
3. Mori-san (Daifuku) - Current stocker cycle times are at 10 seconds, 8 seconds is likely not to be a problem , wait and see regarding acceleration limits for 450mm, may require special support in carrier ( for center of wafer).
FITWG 2000

50. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control (continued)
Assumptions (continued):
Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM
Transition from carrier handling to single wafer handling systems will require new sorting equipment
There must be collaboration between equipment suppliers for EFEMs development
Requires new standard physical interface between process/metrology equipment and EFEMs
High throughput robot required – Concern about material handling robot downtime impact
Preventative maintenance and unscheduled downtime impact are not clear
Required equipment to load port matching and lot integrity are key challenges
Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving “Sushi Bar”)
Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems will require ultra high speed wafer handling equipment
Lot integrity a key issue
Equipment interface robot required to replace current EFEMs wafer handling robot
Targeted for 450mm transition
All configurations above are valid, however it is important to select appropriate solution for each factory situation
If cluster equipments, then total tool to tool moves may go down. Honma some big (parallel) clusters of equipment are appearing CMP-clean-measurement. At higher nodes the number of process steps will go up due to increases in metallization levels. Dev.- If go with smaller lot sizes then may have more carriers in total and increased moves required. Discussed tradeoffs between conveyor and vehicle base transport. Impact on overall move requirements??? One scheme is to use clustering to hold number of process steps constant across nodes. Improvements in AMHS performance may be smaller per year and not at same rate as number of metal levels etc. Therefore conclusion: follow roadmap to limit and then assume flat from there on out due to clustering
2. Keep cycle times for large and small stockers - ????
3. Mori-san (Daifuku) - Current stocker cycle times are at 10 seconds, 8 seconds is likely not to be a problem , wait and see regarding acceleration limits for 450mm, may require special support in carrier ( for center of wafer).
FITWG 2000

51. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Type 1: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control - Sorter and Metrology with Stockers
End View
Sorter
Metro
Tools
OHT Loop
Stocker
Stocker robot loads
Sorters and Metro
equipment Loadports
Process Tools
Stockers
OHT Loop
Sorter
Metro
Tools
Stocker robot interfaces directly with
Sorters and Metro equip
When Solutions Are Needed:
Development Underway in 2002
Qualification/Production by 2003
(Complete for Sorter)
Potential Solutions Require:
Standardized Intrabay Operation
Integrated Software
FITWG 2000

52. Type 2-1 ：Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Connected EFEM）
Equipment
Supplier A
Equipment
Supplier C
Equipment
Supplier B
Wafer
Staging
Carrier
Staging
Potential Solutions Require:
I/F Standard (H/W, S/W)
Standardized EFEM
Software
Integrated
Wafer level APC
Standardized Intrabay Operation
When Solutions Are Needed:
Research Required by TBD
Development Underway by TBD
Qualification/Production by TBD
Conceptual Only

53. Type 2-2 ：Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Expanded EFEM）
Standard
Tool Widths
Potential Solutions Require:
System controller of Equipment Group
Wafer Dispatcher
Module structure of equipment
Standardized I/F
Standardized Width
Modular Process Steps
High Speed Wafer Transfer
Standardized Intrabay Operation
When Solutions Are Needed:
Research Required by TBD
Development Underway by TBD
Qualification/Production by TBD
Conceptual Only

54. Type 2-3: Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar)
Single
Wafer
Conceptual Only
Wafer
Transport
Potential Solutions Require:
Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer
Target M/C to M/C 7sec.
Wafer Level Dispatching
Carrier
Level
Transport
Single Chamber
Process Tool
Stocker
Metrology
Tool
Multi-Wafer
Carrier
When Solutions Are Needed:
Research Required by 2007
Development Underway by 2010
Qualification/Production by 2013
Target 450mm

55. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Delivery Time: Under Track Storage
ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Delivery Time: Under Track Storage
FITWG 2000

56. UTS Requirements Potential Benefits:
Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools
Better support of quick-turn processes
Hot lot handling
Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot)
Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution
Potential Solutions Require:
Capable of OHT pick / place
Handoff by E84 (optional)
Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issues
WIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTS
Alignment with kinematic pins (optional)
Carrier identification capabilities (optional)
Ability to detect FOUP placement/presence and/or misplacement
When Solutions Are Needed:
Development Underway by 2003
Qualification/Production by 2004
T. Mariano
Brooks

57. Potential UTS Solutions – Passive Shelf
T. Mariano
Brooks

58. Potential UTS Solutions – Re-circulating Buffer
T. Mariano
Brooks

59. Potential UTS Solutions – Linear Buffer
T. Mariano
Brooks

60. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Inert Gas Purging of Foups

61. ITRS Factory Integation TWG
2017/3/27
Potential Solutions – Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs
Need: Option for Improvement in Wafer FOUP Level Environmental Conditioning
along with Compliance to Industry Safety Standards
FOUP
Nest
OHT Loop
FOUP
Output
FOUP Input
Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports
Stocker
Potential Solutions Require:
Inert Gas Injection Purge Nests in
Wafer Stockers
Gas Plumbing with High Flow
Initial Purge & Low Sustaining Flow
Rates
Material & Stocker Control
Systems to Support Partial
Population of Purge Nests in
Stockers
User Consensus and/or Industry
Hardware Standards Needed for
FOUP / Purge Port Interoperability
(E47.1 update – Locations on Foup Define interface in E47.1)
FOUPs being Purged
FOUP
Out put
FOUP Input
Stocker robot loads to/from Purge
& Non-Purge FOUP storage nests
End View
When Solutions Are Needed:
Development Underway in 2003
(65nm / 90nm)
Qualification/Production starting 2004
L. Foster TI
FITWG 2000

62. ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints

63. Facility Cross Linkage Issues
Drivers:
Slurry (Polish)
Copper
Other hazardous materials
Cleanliness requirements
Shipping & receiving
...
Area A
Area B ‚
 Protocol Change
‚ Traverse
D. Glueer
AMD

64. Facility Cross Linkage Approaches
Protocol Change:
Vehicle change: Transferring a carrier from one AMHS vehicle to another vehicle requiring robotic handlers and local buffers.
Potential Solutions: See presentation Direct Transport material for option to “Transfer between transport devices”.
FOUP change: - Potential Solutions
A) Via Sorter: Transferring wafer by wafer
B) Via Flipper: Transferring content as a whole, e.g. via comb
1) Integrated: Transfer device integrated in Stocker
2) External: Hoist delivering carrier to Transfer Device
Traverse: - Potential Solutions
through tunnels
on dedicated vehicles
using dedicated tracks and/or routes
D. Glueer
AMD

65. Facilitity Cross Linkage Considerations
Directions:
Unidirectional: Best separation
Bi-directional: Lower COO (1 for 2, re-use of Empties)
Multi-usage: E.g. from area A one transfer device both to B and to C
+ saving footprint
- complex control structure, higher impact of down-events
Availability of (appropriate) Empties:
Empty vehicles / empty FOUPs
Washing cycles
Protocol restrictions esp. for multi-usage transfers
Local buffer capacity of transfer device
Facilities:
Air pressure
Fire protection
D. Glueer
AMD

66. Facility Cross Linkage Metrics
Throughput
“Cycle Time”
Availability
Amount of
Transfers/Layer
Mask Layer
Transfers due to other reasons
WSPM
Wafers / Carrier
„Bi-directional“
„Unidirectional“ = +
Sample: WSPM ÷ 25 Wafers/FOUP • (4 • ) = 265 Transfers per Hour
= 2 • Average Carrier Delivery Time + Transfer Time
Sample: 2 • 8 Minutes + 5 Minutes = 21 Minutes
D. Glueer
AMD

67. Facility Cross Linkage Conclusions
Many ways to address Facility Cross Linkage issues
Selection process is site-specific and needs to be made in close cooperation with CFM department
High drawback to MES and AMHS control structure
Transfer devices may turn out to be bottleneck, esp. when “multi-usage”
Handling Empties increases AMHS duties significantly
High impact to AMHS delivery times
May lead to impact of whole wafer processing cycle time
Usually trade-off between cleanliness concerns vs. AMHS performance
Could be reduced by appropriate dispatching and scheduling
“Just in Time” delivery of FOUPs
Redundancy needs to be build-in
D. Glueer
AMD

68. Potential Research Topics – Vibration Requirements
Proposed Research Title
Characterization of Acceptable Vibration and Acceleration Limits on Wafers
Background
Current industry specs on vibration/acceleration applied to wafers by AMHS and not supported by data on potential damage to wafers
Proposal
Need to analyze potential negative effects (mechanical damage, defects, yield loss) to wafers induced by different levels or types of vibration during automated handling.
Project Scenario
Data Characterization threshold for acceptable vibration/acceleration would allow for speed and cycle time of AMHS products to be improved without inducing WIP Jeopardy.
Deliverables
Recommended specifications for vibration applied to wafers by AMHS and supporting data
Support Required
Tools for characterization, wafer vibration,
Skills in mechanical engineering, materials, process, yield
Benefit
Current vibration limits are constraining the AMHS cycle time (stockers, vehicles). New vibration limits have the potential to increase system throughput.
Simulation results w/ new stocker and vehicle cycle time can be used to show system throughput benefits.

69. Potential Research Topics
FOUP Cleanliness
Methodology for measuring cleanliness of FOUPs (other than liquid particle counts). Need repeatable technique for characterization of cleaning FOUPS. Benefit – Better cleaning system, reduced cleaning
Unified Transport System Validation
Demonstrate, through simulation, a unified transport system capable of achieving system throughput requirements in requirements table.
Ex. Empty vehicle management in a unified system. Need to demonstrate a peak system for 40K WSPM factory with unified transport system (vehicle based).
Provide distribution strategy / rules that can be used by AMHS vendors.
Benefit – Validate feasibility of unified transport system in a fully loaded fab.
FOUP Purging
What are requirements for FOUP purging?